Tort Law in Nepal (2026): Civil Code 2074, Negligence & Compensation

Until the Muluki Civil Code 2074 came into force in 2018, tort law in Nepal was a borrowed concept — judges and lawyers used English common-law principles, the older Muluki Ain's scattered compensation provisions, and case-by-case analogies. The 2074 Code changed that. Sections 672 to 684 codified tort law as a self-contained chapter of Nepali civil law: a single general principle that no person shall cause harm to another's body, property, or legally protected interest; a clear catalogue of named torts; rules on vicarious liability; a compensation framework; and a strict six-month limitation that catches most claimants by surprise.

This guide is the 2026 (2083 BS) practitioner's view of tort law in Nepal: every section a District Court will cite, the working tests for negligence, defamation, nuisance and trespass, the vicarious-liability rules that pull employers and parents into liability, the compensation heads that determine quantum, and the procedural steps from incident to judgment. If you are a victim deciding whether to sue, a defendant facing a claim, or counsel structuring a case, this is the file you will work from.

Alpine Law Associates — Nepal Bar Council-registered civil litigation team handling tort, compensation, and personal-injury claims for 1,000+ clients in Kathmandu and abroad.

Speak with our lawyers today →

What is tort law in Nepal in 2026?

Tort law in Nepal is the body of civil law that gives a person a right to compensation when another person's wrongful act — whether deliberate or negligent — causes harm to their body, property, or legally protected interest. It is the civil-law cousin of criminal law: where a criminal prosecution serves the state's interest in punishing wrongdoing, a tort claim serves the victim's interest in being made financially whole. The two run in parallel — a road-accident victim can both file an FIR (criminal) and bring a tort claim (civil) for damages, and the outcome of one does not bar the other.

The Muluki Civil Code 2074 codified tort law for the first time in Nepal. Before 2018, courts applied common-law principles imported from English jurisprudence and Indian case law, supplemented by scattered provisions of the older Muluki Ain. Codification has produced more predictable adjudication and lower entry barriers for ordinary plaintiffs — but six years on, awareness of the framework outside the legal community remains thin, and many tort-victim claims fail simply because the six-month limitation under Section 684 expires before the claimant approaches counsel.

Section 672 — the general principle of liability

Section 672(1) of the Civil Code 2074 is the foundational provision. In substance it states that no person shall, by act or omission, negligently or otherwise, cause harm to the body, property, or legally protected interest of another person. Where harm is caused, the person responsible becomes liable to make good the loss — to compensate. Section 672 does not require criminal intent; ordinary negligence is enough. Section 672 also does not require a contractual relationship; the duty exists at large.

The provision establishes three elements that any tort claimant must establish: (i) the defendant did or omitted to do an act; (ii) that act caused harm to the plaintiff's body, property, or interest; (iii) the harm was caused negligently or wilfully. The claimant does not have to prove a specific named tort to succeed — Section 672 is a residual general clause that catches new factual patterns the named torts may not. In practice, however, almost every claim is also pleaded as one of the named torts because the named-tort framing assists evidence and quantum.

What are the main torts under Nepali law?

The Civil Code 2074 codifies five principal torts. They are not exhaustive — Section 672's general principle catches conduct outside these named torts — but they account for nearly all litigated tort matters.

1. Negligence. The most common tort in Nepal. The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, breached it, and caused harm. Road-traffic accidents, medical errors, slip-and-fall in commercial premises, and professional malpractice all sit in this category. The standard is the reasonable person — what a person of ordinary prudence would have done in the circumstances.
2. Defamation. A statement, written or spoken, that lowers the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. Nepali law distinguishes libel (written / permanent) from slander (spoken / transient) for evidentiary purposes but treats both as actionable torts. Truth, fair comment on a matter of public interest, and qualified privilege are recognised defences. See our companion guide on defamation in Nepal.
3. Nuisance. Unreasonable interference with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of their land or property. Public nuisance affects the community at large; private nuisance affects an identifiable plaintiff. Common factual patterns are noise from commercial premises, air or water pollution from a neighbour's industry, and obstruction of access.
4. Trespass. Unjustified entry on or interference with the plaintiff's land or possessions. Trespass to land is the classic example; trespass to goods (chattels) covers wrongful interference with movable property; trespass to person covers physical contact without consent — assault and battery in common-law terminology.
5. Liability for dangerous acts. A defendant who keeps or carries on dangerous things — explosives, large animals, hazardous chemicals, heavy industrial activities — is held to a higher standard. In some categories, liability is strict; the plaintiff need not prove negligence, only that the dangerous activity caused the harm.

Vicarious liability — who else can be held liable?

The Civil Code 2074 recognises that the person who physically does the wrongful act is not always the most appropriate defendant. Two categories of vicarious liability are codified.

Liability of parents and guardians. Parents, guardians, or court-appointed curators are held liable for tortious acts committed by minors under fourteen years of age and persons of unsound mind under their care. The rationale is supervisory: those in charge of persons who lack full legal capacity must answer for the consequences of inadequate supervision. The defence is to show that supervision was reasonable in the circumstances and the act was unforeseeable.

Liability of employers. An employer is liable for torts committed by an employee in the course of employment. This is the doctrine on which most personal-injury claims against companies, transport operators, and hospitals run. The course-of-employment requirement matters — an off-duty employee committing a deliberate criminal act is not a vicarious liability for the employer, but a delivery driver causing a road accident on the company route is. Independent contractors are generally not employees for this purpose, but the line is fact-sensitive.

Compensation under Section 682 — what damages can a victim claim?

Section 682 codifies the compensation framework. The court orders the wrongdoer to pay damages reflecting the actual loss and harm caused. Damages in Nepali tort practice include three principal heads.

• Bodily harm. Medical expenses (hospital bills, surgery, ongoing treatment), loss of earnings during incapacity, loss of future earning capacity, pain and suffering, and disfigurement / disability premium.
• Property damage. Repair or replacement cost of damaged property, loss-of-use damages where the property could not be employed during repair, and consequential losses where the property's destruction caused a downstream business loss.
• Reputational and mental harm. Damages for defamation, mental distress where caused by the tort, and consequential losses where reputation harm caused commercial damage. Quantum is at the court's discretion and is informed by the standing of the plaintiff, the gravity of the imputation, and any aggravating or mitigating factors.

Punitive or exemplary damages — additional sums to punish particularly egregious conduct beyond making the plaintiff whole — are not formally codified in the Civil Code 2074 but courts have, in some cases, awarded enhanced damages for wilful and outrageous conduct. The trend is cautious; Nepali jurisprudence remains primarily compensatory.

The six-month limitation under Section 684 — the most-missed rule

Section 684 prescribes a strict limitation period: a tort claim must be filed within six months from the date of the wrongful act. The clock runs from the date of the act, not the date the claimant became aware of it — although in continuing torts (a long-running nuisance, persistent defamation) each fresh act starts a fresh clock.

This six-month period is materially shorter than the limitation periods in many other jurisdictions and is the single most common reason tort claims fail in Nepal. By the time a road-accident victim has finished medical treatment, completed insurance correspondence, and approached counsel, the limitation may already have run. The practical guidance: where any tortious harm is suffered, the plaintiff should engage counsel and at least file the plaint within the six-month window, even if the medical bills and lost earnings are still being assessed at that stage. Quantification can be amended later; a missed limitation cannot be undone.

How is a tort claim filed at the District Court?

Procedure follows the National Civil Procedure Code 2074. The plaint is filed at the District Court of the defendant's residence or where the cause of action arose, with the prescribed court fee (calculated on the damages claimed). The plaintiff sets out the facts, the section relied on, the harm suffered, and the damages claimed. The defendant is summoned and files a written reply within the statutory window. Where the case is suitable, the court may refer the parties to mediation; if mediation does not resolve it, the case proceeds to evidence and trial.

Evidence is the heart of a tort case. Medical reports, police reports, photographs, expert opinions (mechanical engineers in road-accident cases, doctors in medical-error cases, surveyors in property cases), and documentary evidence of loss form the bulk of the file. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving each element on the balance of probabilities — a lower standard than the criminal "beyond reasonable doubt" — but enough to satisfy the court that the harm and the defendant's responsibility are more likely than not. Either party may appeal a decree to the High Court within thirty-five days under the Civil Procedure Code 2074.

Tort claim alongside criminal proceedings — running both in parallel

A single incident often gives rise to both a criminal offence and a tort. A road accident causing injury can ground a criminal prosecution under the Muluki Criminal Code 2074 (negligent driving causing hurt) and a tort claim for damages. The two are independent. The criminal prosecution is run by the state through the police and prosecutor; the tort claim is run by the victim privately. Acquittal on the criminal charge does not bar the tort claim, because the standards of proof differ. Conviction can be evidence in the tort trial but is not conclusive on quantum.

Practically, victim-side counsel commonly pursue both lines: the FIR for criminal accountability and pressure to negotiate, and the tort plaint for compensation. In medical-error and defamation matters, the criminal route may be unavailable or weak, and the tort route is the only pathway to remedy. In serious workplace or industrial accidents, the criminal investigation may produce evidence (police reports, expert opinions) that strengthens the tort case at minimal additional cost.

Common reasons tort claims fail or are reduced in Nepal

• Six-month limitation missed. The most frequent failure. The plaintiff approaches counsel after the medical treatment is finished and the bills are tabulated — by which time Section 684 has run.
• Causation gap. The plaintiff proves the defendant's act and proves the harm, but cannot demonstrate that the act caused the harm. Particularly common in medical-error cases where the underlying condition might independently have produced the same outcome.
• Contributory negligence. Where the plaintiff's own conduct contributed to the harm — speeding driver in a road accident, non-compliance with safety instructions on a worksite — courts apportion the loss and reduce the recoverable damages.
• Quantum unsupported. Damages claimed without medical bills, employment income proof, repair invoices, or expert valuation are routinely scaled down by the court to what is documentable.
• Wrong defendant. Suing the employee personally where vicarious-liability principles point to the employer, or suing a parent without establishing the under-14 / unsound-mind threshold.
• Truth defence in defamation. Defamation suits often fail at the defence stage where the defendant proves substantial truth or qualified privilege.

How can Alpine Law Associates help with a tort claim in Nepal?

Alpine Law Associates handles tort and personal-injury work as a sequenced engagement. Our civil litigation team covers initial consultation and limitation triage (the six-month window means time-zero engagement matters), evidence preservation memo (medical records, police reports, witness statements, photographs), expert engagement for medical, mechanical or surveying opinions, plaint drafting under the relevant Civil Code section, the District Court file through reply, mediation and trial, and quantum support including documentary proof of medical, lost-earnings, and consequential damages. We also handle defamation work under both civil tort and any parallel criminal route — see our companion guide on defamation in Nepal.

For corporate clients facing tort claims as defendants — employer vicarious liability, premises-liability claims, product-liability matters — we lead the defence with insurance coordination where the policy covers liability, witness preparation, and expert challenge. As a full-service law firm in Nepal, we run tort cases alongside related contract, criminal, and insurance lines without our clients switching counsel mid-matter. NRN clients abroad can engage remotely through power of attorney.

Speak with our lawyers today →

Last reviewed: April 2026